yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/14/84)
From duke!mcnc!ulysses!unc!akgua!rjb Fri Sep 21 05:02:54 1984 Mr. BenDavid, You recently submitted this item to net.religion >> >>If vocal prayer is a doctrine of some religion then it inheretly >>designs to impose its vocal prayers on the ears of some whose >>right it is to be free of such imposed prayer. That is against >>the constitution. Their right to pray stops at my right not to >>have it imposed on my ears, the ears of my children, and not >>have my children subjected to peer ridicule for resisting (even >>being a passive party to) religious imposition. >> >>Christianity from time to time has the doctrine of forced con- >>version (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Naziism, etc.). Shouldn't >>they too be allowed to "do their thing" in schools under that >>same principle? Just because it is a doctrine of some religion >>to pray vocally has no relevance to their right to PRACTICE >>their religion IN SCHOOL! The whole argument of the constitution >>relates to the right to practice one's religion in freedom APART >>FROM PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS and/or governmental ENDORSEMENT. >> >> Dealing with your first paragraph... Wouldn't the logical extension of your reasoning say that I only have freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend you ? I take this tack because religious speech has too long been relegated to second class status. Again peer ridicule is exercise of free speech. Ignorant and unkind as it can be it is part of the exercise of free speech. Would you have the teachers or their assistants patrolling the school yard searching for those ridiculers (?) of their peers and punishing them ? Christianity must accept "blame" for the Inquisition and the Crusades but the Nazis were not officially Christians (they were more into Nature Worship) although they did put out propaganda that said things like "God sent Hitler to restore Germany to its rightfull place....etc etc" and "The 1000 year Reich will usher in the Millenium..." Jews were not forced to convert to Christianity. You were a Jew, by Nazi definition, if a certain portion of your ancestors were Jews. Your present religion at the time these facts were revealed was not relevant to whether you got to ride the train to the concentration camp. If your assertion is correct please provide a reference of wide spread forced conversion during Hitler's era. Remember Nazi dogma said that Jews were subhuman and it is a tad illogical to want to convert what you consider subhumans into your elite Aryan group, isn't it ? (if we assume Nazism is Christian ) Finally, the Constitution as implemented did not prohibit public exercise of religion (especially Christianity) in our public institutions. It remains to be seen if your view will carry the day legally but your view is certainly anti-historical in view of the continuous presence of God and religion (again usually Christianity) in the Government from the Continental Congress all the way down to the House and Senate today who continue to have invocations and chaplins. In the beginning of our Republic this "flaw" was not evident to the Founding Fathers (and Mothers). Perhaps, like Slavery, it will be a Constitutional error that is corrected. But also perhaps it will be recognized as an exercise of Free Speech which is the outcome I desire. Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I (Yirmiyahu) sent the following reply to Rev Bob via mail so as to spare him public embarrassment while still hoping to impres on him the gravity of the potential consequences of his views. Considering his continued persistence in imposing his din on our ears I think it is now appropriate to share it with the net: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ A more careful and logically precise analysis of my writing should have shown you that the conclusion to which you leaped does not logically follow from my writing. You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to make me listen to you or your views. Also, you do not have the right to employ public institutions and/or government support to make your voice heard. Children are required to be in school and they have a right not to have repugnant religious views imposed upon them there. The rights of free speech are limited to exercise in a place and manner where others are free to go if the wish or stay away if they wish. That is freedom for both. Peer ridicule resulting from this may seem like free speech to you but you'll find that if you go around calling Jews, blacks, and others derogatory names you'll probably get your face punched in sooner or later. The courts do not view this as free speech. You have a perverted idea of what free speech is - and you are out of synch with America, the Constitution and the courts, so don't hand me this founding fathers stuff. Your knowledge of history is spotty to be charitable. To advocate teaching children such stuff is the worst form of bigotry. Yes, you are a Bigot. Contrary to your wishful redefining of Nazis out of Christianity, the Third Reich equated to the Third Holy Roman Empire - which also explains the Roman Catholic complicity in so many instances which has been reported in the news recently. Even you mentioned their belief that they were ushering in the millenium and fighting the war of Christ against the Jews who 'falsely' claimed to be the people of God and thus were supplanting/slandering the 'true' church. Ah, but Christianity more than any other group is adept at dis- claiming each other if they don't approve, from snake-handlers to holy rollers to Hitler. Holiness Christians, Jeh---h's Witnesses and others say YOU'RE not a Christian too. What do you think of that? That doesn't change my mind about EITHER of you. If you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, THEN YOU'RE A BLINKING DUCK! Regarding forced conversions. I assumed the readers had the intelligence to see that I was talking about both forced con- versions and persecution. I was wrong and I'm sorry about that. If you doubt there has been forced conversions, read up on the Constantine and follow it from there. Since you clearly stated that you desire the outcome which allows you to impose your voice on others against their will let me say that you are in the company of such giants as Constantine, the Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisitors and Hitler - all of whom shared with you the view that they had the right to impose Christian views on others. As intensely as you're going to disbelieve this, if you had lived in one of those times and in one of those places, you would have been one of the first to follow these champions of evil for they preyed upon just that point of view. You're ripe for some charismatic champion of that genre to come along. The next one will have to be far more sophisticated and subtle of course; more like a Falwell than a Hitler the next time - honey-sweet and insidious. Maybe you're right. Maybe America will follow along with you. In the meantime don't bother to mail me anything else. I haven't time to try to bring reason to an illogical and unknowledgeable bigot. Such attempts are almost always futile since, if there were a bright prospect for illumination, it would presuppose characteristics in the individual which would have precluded such stagnation in the first place. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I hardly regard this as 'discussion on a number of matters'. I take issue with this because I've reached the conclusion that Rev Bob just doesn't relate to logic or intelligent discussion. I've therefore concluded that his submissions are not worthy of response from me. Incidenetally, it IS possible to bar Rev Bob from the Jewish net - it could become a moderated net if he persists. In point of fact, if Rev Bob HAD any real arguments in favor of Christianity he would be writing feverishly on net.religion where I have shown quite effectively that Christianity has no basis in history, no basis in fact, no basis in the ancient mss. of the 'New Testament' even! So, Rev Bob, if there is anything to be said for Christianity you'd best hurry home to net.religion and try to put out the embers cause the house has already burnt down! Perhaps you should try to get a net.religion.Christian... net.religion.pagan... or net.religion.bigots? Yirmiyahu Ben-David
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/19/84)
Yiri, I am both devastated and shamed by your mastery of all things great and small :-) Joe was right, I should have gotten out while the gettin' was good. Rev Bob. "We'll now take a silent offering. I don't want to hear no silver hittin' the plate, only folding green."
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/19/84)
> Again peer ridicule is exercise of free speech. Ignorant > and unkind as it can be it is part of the exercise of > free speech. Would you have the teachers or their > assistants patrolling the school yard searching for > those ridiculers (?) of their peers and punishing them ? As someone who recalls hours of misery in the schoolyard, being taunted by packs of repulsive and despicable brats, to whom I had made no overtures or initiated any contact with whatsoever, I vote YES! resoundingly. The primary duty of people to each other is to let each other alone. These vermin had not learned that; if it took pain to teach them that lesson, they should suffer that pain in order to learn it. It would have done my psyche a world of good to see these scum flogged for their behavior; the fact that they caused me misery and suffered not at all as a result has probably done quite a bit to my world-view and attitudes. (Sorry for sticking this into net.religion.jewish; since the item being followed up was only posted there, I felt that this had to also go there. Any future followups should probably go to net.religion only.) Will
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/21/84)
I think your follow-up was perfectly appropriate here. I thank you for posting it. In retrospect (and consequent to coaxing from my Jewish peers), it may not have been the best of judgement to employ the kind of ridicule toward Mr. Brown that he sees as so harmless toward others. I'm not sure I agree that it wasn't called for. On the other hand, I'm no more infallible than the next guy and am willing to defer to the consensus of fellow Jews whenever it is reasonable. Certainly, as Jews we wish to be harmless toward others rather than foment harm as has so often been done to us. For this reason I offer my apology to Mr. Brown for the sarcastic use of the phrase 'Rev Bob'. (However, I remain resolutely behind the rest of the article.)